October 02, 2014, 09:11:00 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - tomscott

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 42
I like it looks good!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Am I crazy to sell my Canon gear?
« on: May 21, 2013, 06:03:32 AM »
I use a 5DMKIIII for all my work but have a little NEX 5N similar to the one your looking at.

The sensor is fantastic, amazing detail, very sharp, lots of DR and a great camera to use. I dont think your mad they are smaller, much much more portable, the image quality will be similar to what your used to with the 5DC although low light may not be quite as good.

But the camera is a compromise, but IMO a good one. Although you cannot replace your DSLR with a mirrorless for everything as of yet unless its a fuji I like the X100s and Xpro1 but they are quite expensive, even those dont track particularly well. Bang for buck nothing beats the sonys really. I have taken some great pics with mine, for little trips daily camera to have around the DSLR is a bit overkill and the Nex does a great job. It doesn't cut it for my work tho and the 5DMKIII blows it away but again its 5-6x the size without a lens.

Only problem with the sony kit is that there is a lack of lenses but hopefully in time.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon SL1 sensor a step back?
« on: May 15, 2013, 04:41:02 AM »
I dont think he was comparing the cameras he was comparing the sensor which most people expected to have similar performance as its based on the Digic 5 sensor tech. Or that it could have been tweaked to get slightly better results.

I dont think anyone expected it to be ground breaking in terms of IQ. But what we have to remember that the sensor isnt the best on the market but you can still get some damn good shots out of it, for professional use I was disappointed with the 18mp sensor IQ and noise performance but I would never use an SL1 for that, which is why I have a 5DMKIII.

I really like the camera I think its extremely cool and it would be fantastic as a travel camera or one for the family. I wouldn't scrutinise it the same way I would the better camera as you expect them to be better. The form factor is what should be focused on here its tiny and with a bit of PP the 18mp sensor can look good. I use a Nex 5N and miss the viewfinder so this would be a good alternative.

TBF tho the situation in which it was tested was really poor conditions and the amount of times you would be shooting in that kind of light is probably less than 5%. Still have to remember this is now the bottom camera in the line up and its pretty cool. I expect in a year when the new sensor tech is out that this will be a camera to be reckoned with.

The average buyer for this camera will not be able to see the difference in quality and let alone care about it. So I dont think Canon have to worry about it not being a cash cow I expect it to be a huge success.

Im actually thinking about buying one so I can use all my lenses while I travel.

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: May 11, 2013, 10:25:15 AM »
Awesome Ferrari Challenge race meeting pics above! Although why you would put a camo wrap on one if beyond me!

VW Beetle by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 08, 2013, 05:02:55 AM »
I think most people on here are getting carried away and running with the sheep...

I think CC is a great idea the amount of applications from the suite you get the value per app is quite high. Like I said earlier the Full CS6 Suite is £2,500 and you can have that for £600py and 45% less if you are upgrading. Seen as tho the CS suites have had a 18month life span in theory its cheaper... and there are a lot of new aps you may not have heard of which are brilliant. Like Muse and Edge.

The suite has 38 different apps and add ons. for £48 a month to start that is 80p per application. In my business we use all of them.

If you are just a photographer and not in multimedia which I find hard to believe, then a version of photoshop is £17 a month which I also see as good value, compared to spending the full outlay on PS Extended which is £649, then a new version will be out in 18 months with an upgrade path of 50% off so thats £900 for one programme. or £204 a year for PS CC.

TBH I feel most of the people who are complaining are not current subscribers to CS anyway and get it some how under the rug... For a pro it is bread and butter and it pays for itself, its a small price to pay.

For the people who apparently bought every CS suite, what did you do with it after you upgraded? I bet you didn't sell it, I bet its still sitting on a shelf.

Its like getting a car on PP you pay for the usage then dont have to worry about residuals and depreciation because the package is better value for people who USE it.

The IF statement whether you quit and then you have nothing for your money, well as a pro why would you quit? If you are a current customer they are giving good upgrade paths... There is NOTHING on the market even close and it is an industry standard! All agencies, newspapers etc use it. The CS suite has been in development for 20 years. I don't see anything coming to market at the same scale and quality any time soon.

PS is a pro application with pro prices... people seem to forget that, its not the go to app for any old john doe, it never has been its just been made available by piracy.

Brilliant, but il stick with BMW ;)

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 07, 2013, 06:18:59 AM »
For business this is an attractive package. I work for a small newspaper and we run 20 or so machines with CS5.5, its nice you can get the whole suite and seen as tho every machine is used 5 days a week for 8 hours with these aps in constant use it is worth it.

Also for those thinking adobe will produce poor upgrades check out their youtube channel there are some awesome additions to CC only already like Camera Raw being a photoshop filter!


Terry White's Top 5 Favorite Features for Photographers in Photoshop CC

If anything the photoshop CC seems to be willing customers with the new features as they aren't available anywhere else. Here in the UK it is £48 a month for the whole suite. Seems pretty reasonable, I am a graphic designer/photographer and I use 80% of the applications in the suite daily. At home I use PS ID IL LR and Muse. But I dont see the updates being slow or non existent I think it will speed it up to get more people on board. Once you buy the software they have you where they want you and the need for upgrades is less. Whereas with the CC they are reaching a broader audience.

Also it depends what version you are looking at. The Full CS6 suite in the UK is £2550. Now if you sign up to the CC it will cost £600 a year, each version of CS has had a shelf life of 18-24 months. For that time scale it will be £900 or £1200 thats half the price. Although the problem is that if you decide to quit then you have nothing for your money.

But at the same time I haven't been one to stay on older software, CS4 was slow CS5 was slow (on the mac side) CS5.5 64bit faster. CS4 wont work on Lion either so... IMO having the latest software to keep up with my kit is essential. Camera raw has moved on so far you are loosing out by not having the newest software especially in a competitive market such as print production.

So imo is depends on your situation. Really if you are an amateur a version of PS CS6 and lightroom 4 is a good combo but it will cost you more. But again it will be out of date in no time what so ever as CC takes hold.

But for amateurs I see this sucking pretty bad, there will be another option on its way. Early days yet.

I have full faith they will not isolate amateurs.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Weddings
« on: May 02, 2013, 09:51:36 AM »
These are beautiful images. This is what I aspire to as a wedding photographer.

Thanks for sharing, inspirational.

EOS-M / Re: Eos M my first impressions!
« on: May 01, 2013, 08:00:33 AM »
Pics look great as always! Nice review. Still not sold on it the Sony Nex are better cameras but canon lenses... hard decision. But hopefully the M range will grow.

I bought a Nex 5N twin lens because I got it cheap and its a great to hand camera, amazing noise much better than my old 7D. Lenses leave a lot to be desired tho.

Lenses / Re: Anyone upgraded from their 24-70L to 24-70L MKII?
« on: April 30, 2013, 11:03:27 AM »
Thanks for the insight folks.

I tried 3 copies of mrk I (2 new + 1 used), none of them could gave me the results I'm looking for.

YES...mrk II has better contrast and much sharper at f2.8. This is my most use lens. Follow by 70-200 f2.8 IS II and of course 50L when there almost no light.

Many posters ended up buying this lens after they posted similar questions ;)

Dylan, after getting the 24-70 MKII do you feel you have been using the 16-35 less and less for landscapes and wide shots? Or, the 16-35 still gets used quite often? I am asking because I have the 16-35 II, and wondering if I will end up using the 24-70 MKII more for landscapes than the 16-35 II and may end up giving up the wider focal length for better resolution.

I still using 16-35 for lanscapes. I like the effects of 16mm. Most of my landscape shots I took are @ 16mm. I'm thinking 14mm prime though, since 16-35 is not quite sharp @ f2.8.

I mainly use 24-70 for indoor family & candid photos. This lens is pretty straight forward: sharp & fast AF.

How many Landscapes do you shoot at F2.8....

Lenses / Re: How about a new 28-135mm?
« on: April 30, 2013, 06:06:52 AM »
Optically the 24-105mm is better, especially at larger apertures. F4 throughout the Zoom range is much more useful than 3.5-5.6 especially at the long end. It quickly moves from 3.5-5.6 so you loose light and variable aperture lenses are just a pain. 24mm is much more of a big deal than 135mm on the longer end for me. Easier to have a 70-200mm which I always keep with me.

Also the 24-105mm is weather sealed and built like a brick in comparison. I never saw the value in the 28-135mm it was rubbish on crop because its like 38mm on the wide end and on FF the IQ isnt good enough. Value wise.. if your on a budget fair enough but its pointless adding a high quality body to a poor lens, better off buying a crop camera and a better lens.

As for upgrading it I would prefer Canon spent R&D time on an upgrade to the 24-105mm maybe to 24-135mm F4 L  that will sell like hot cakes. If they made a 2.8 version of that...  :o that would be the perfect walk around. But they would never do it.. as it will make 3-4 lenses irrelevant, so il keep dreaming.

In fact im surprised they are still making the 28-135mm.

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: April 30, 2013, 04:33:06 AM »
Following a suggestion to check out this area of CR.  Very nice shots!

Thought I'd try my hand at photographing cars.  Just wondering what what be a good combination to photograph an outdoor classic car show coming up next weekend.  The widest lens I have for a crop-body is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and for FF: 24-105 f4.   There may be some open-house events where cars will be on display inside custom auto shops but this will be my first time attending this event, I'm not really sure.  If the event goes until say 8 pm in the evening, then the 17-55 might be the best way to go.

Suggestions and recommendations welcome   ;D

Well most of mine were taken with an old 40D and a 17-55mm, was so sharp on that body. Some taken with the 7D and 17-55mm and others taken with my 5DMKIII and a 24-105mm.

I think you have the bases covered. I would take a prime for low light large DOF, maybe a macro for details and if you get chance a 70-200mm F2.8 is nice to compress perspective with things around going on, then blur the background out to reduce distraction. But can be a pain if there are a lot of people around. I kept the 17-55mm when I shot crop and 24-105mm on FF. Ive been shooting cars for years commercially and neither have let me down. Now I keep the 24-105mm on my FF body and 70-200mm on the Crop body and carry two so I dont need to change lenses.

One last thing to take is a flash with a diffuser, just to fill. Can be very useful and if done correctly no-one would ever know.

You have to be careful. few tips - 17mm close up will distort the car, Better off using 35mm and above to keep distortion at bay. Although can look good, depends what your after.

BMW Z4M Coupe CSL Wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

BMW E46 M3, Alston, Hartside, Cumbria, CSL wheels by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

I would suggest get low, down to the cars hight don't shoot down. Otherwise the car wont look natural and its tell tale signs of amateurish photography. I am always lying on the floor or on one knee when I shoot cars.

Use a tele to compress the perspective bring the background closer.

BMW Z4M Coupe rear by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Look for details

Ferrari Wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Other than that enjoy! The meets and shows have an awesome atmosphere and great people. Talk to the owners, they are always willing to talk about the cars and give them a business card you might get some business.

Here are a few almost exclusively shot on the 17-55mm last year

Silverstone classics (40D)

BMW Z4 Uk national meet (40D 17-55mm few with 10-22mm)

Porsche museum Stuttgart (7D 17-55mm few with 10-22mm)

Just a few of my car shots

Hope this helps.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lens for upcoming Auto show
« on: April 29, 2013, 12:53:05 PM »
The 17-55mm is perfect for car photography used it for years myself.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 42